To change or not to change..... that is the question!

[RichAtVNS]

Hello fellow members,

I have been running the following site Statues, columns, pedestals, table bases, sconces, corbels, Stuffed Animals at LowPrice4u: for the 10 years an selling off of it with overall traffic on decline but quality traffic staying about the same for a while.

Here's the background:
1) the whole site is generated from templates and driven from a database. and I could literally change the look and feel of 8000 pages in about 10 seconds.

2) I am crawled all the time by the Search Engine Bots

3) I use tables extensively, but not frames.

4) I have heard that I should use <div> tags instead tables

5) Others have said by using div tags I can take the navigational elements and move them to the bottom of my page. Thus moving the content up and more powerful.

By the way I am not convinced switch from the <table> tag to the <div> tag buys me anything from a bot looking at the page. They should be able to handle both.

I can see maybe the navigation elements like a toolbar being placed at the end of generated code vs. the beginning having an affect. But does anyone have a research to back it up?????

So what are the pros and cons of making the changes and is there any real reason I should do it?

I really would like some answers because if it really is the case that I am hurting my positions in the Search Engine I will switch my site around faster then you can say "I'm a Newbie!"

[kgun]

See links:

Originally Posted by RichAtVNS

1) the whole site is generated from templates and driven from a database. and I could literally change the look and feel of 8000 pages in about 10 seconds.

2) I am crawled all the time by the Search Engine Bots

3) I use tables extensively, but not frames.

4) I have heard that I should use <div> tags instead tables

HTML*Utopia: Designing*Without*Tables Using*CSS, 2nd*Edition - SitePoint Books Explains it very well.

5) other have said by using div tags I can take the navigational elements and move them to the bottom of my page. Thus moving the content up and more powerful.

So what are the pros and cons of making the changes and is there any real reason I should do it?

Simply javascript: The Three Layers of the Web [JavaScript & Ajax Tutorials]

By the way I am not convinced switch from the <table> tag to the <div> tag buys me anything from a bot looking at the page. They should be able to handle both.

I can see maybe the navigation elements like a toolbar being placed at the end of generated code vs. the beginning having an affect. But does anyone have a research to back it up?????

I really would like an answer because if it really is the case I will switch my site around faster then you can say "I'm a Newbie!"

Their latest book: Everything*You*Know About CSS*Is*Wrong! - SitePoint Books

Note: Tables are for tabular data.

[RichAtVNS]

Kgun,

Thank you for your response. But it did not answer my question.

I understand how to do coding in CSS and that I could remove style information and formatting to another file. After all I do have a Masters in Compiler Design & Construction and Computer Graphics LOL.

But does that really gain me anything?

For instance:
There have been proponents of object oriented programming out their for years and it has not been shown to produce any better code then good functionally broken down code. Both work and are maintainable.

My question is not about supposition! Give me a valid reason, some proof to switch and I will in a heartbeat.

If we were using cars with different octane gas I could physically test the milage of a tank on premium vs. regular.

So where is the data or at least a statement from google that they weight pages differently for <div> vs. <tables> or showing a page with its navigation elements at the end of the file ranking higher for that reason alone.

I have written over 100 computer languages and at the end it all comes down to interpretation and order.

You will have a convert immediately if you can show this to me instead of going off and referencing some book preaching coding ethics.

[kgun]

Ok, I shall try to be more prcise, even if I understand your post as the pro and cons of tables versus CSS. That was a reason I gave you a link to the first book. The link to the article is also related to your post. See what I write in red below. Regarding the second book, I think it is an interesting upgrade. So to your questions and my answers in blue (aside from the comment in red).

Originally Posted by RichAtVNS

Hello fellow members,
5) Others have said by using div tags I can take the navigational elements and move them to the bottom of my page. Thus moving the content up and more powerful.

Yes, that is possible. You can even put the navigational elements in a file and include that file at the bottom of the code. I doubt that will have any SEO effect on Google.

By the way I am not convinced switch from the <table> tag to the <div> tag buys me anything from a bot looking at the page. They should be able to handle both.

Agree. And your thread is posted in the Google sub forum.

I can see maybe the navigation elements like a toolbar being placed at the end of generated code vs. the beginning having an affect. But does anyone have a research to back it up?????

I doubt so.

So what are the pros and cons of making the changes and is there any real reason I should do it?

Note: aside from separting styling, bahaviour and content.

[google junky]

RichAtVNS,

I wouldn't do it.
CSS has the advantage of speeding up the page load time.
It also makes it easy to customize a page more than a page with tables ever thought about doing.

So the questions you need to ask yourself...
Do you need to speed the pages up?
Do you feel your site needs a face lift?

Otherwise you are just taking a silly chance of messing up a good thing to make such a big change.
If you really still want to play with the idea of knowing what you could accomplish with CSS as far as a website then make yourself a sister site and use that as your new play toy. Don't use yours for curiosity. At least the sister site can tell you what you would have been in for and the walls you may hit along the way. Css has such a learning curve as it is already.

Understand that this is just my opinion though. Wait around and see what others say as well.


Good luck in all you do,
Google Junky

[kgun]

Originally Posted by RichAtVNS

For instance:
There have been proponents of object oriented programming out their for years and it has not been shown to produce any better code then good functionally broken down code. Both work and are maintainable.

That could have been a subject for another thread. For number crunching tasks there is no need to use object oriented programming unless you reuse code. And it may introduce additional overhead that may slow your application.

Originally Posted by RichAtVNS

My question is not about supposition! Give me a valid reason, some proof to switch and I will in a heartbeat.

With your background in fourier transformations and programming, you know what an int, double and complex datatype is. Computer languages have int and double as inbuilt types. But not all of them have a complex type. So why not make your own complex type and reuse it in all applications that use it? You only write the code once. You make your own complex class or object (an instance of the class 10 is an instance of an int. 10.17 is an instance of a double). Then you can define the most relevant operators on complex numbers, like +, - and multiplication. By using overloading / polymorhism you can operate on complex numbers like real number without knowing the type. Your API check the type and use the correct operator. This is a very simple aspect of OOP. There is much more. In BETA, everything is a pattern, a form of generalized objects. I have not used the BETA compiler, but I think it is in use in some Simula groups. Wasn't "the Beauty and the Beast" programmed in C++? You can use the same technique to overload strings, so you can add (concatenate) strings and other string operations that are naturally overloaded. By parametrizing code, you can define +, -, * etc on whaever you want, vectors, matrices and other pathological objects found in outer space if you prefer. (I assume that the operation is meaningful).

Originally Posted by RichAtVNS

If we were using cars with different octane gas I could physically test the milage of a tank on premium vs. regular.

A car is a good example. The API (comparable to a GUI) of the car is visible on the instrument panel, but the inner workings is hidden to you (encapsulated). Encapsulation is another important aspect of OOP. The inner workings of the car is hidden to you. You control some functionality of the car from the instrument panel. Writing GUI is done more efficiently and elegantly using OOP. You will not understand it before you master it. The proof is in the pudding.

Originally Posted by RichAtVNS

So where is the data or at least a statement from google that they weight pages differently for <div> vs. <tables> or showing a page with its navigation elements at the end of the file ranking higher for that reason alone.

That is answered in my above post.

Originally Posted by RichAtVNS

I have written over 100 computer languages and at the end it all comes down to interpretation and order.

My bolding. What do you mean?

X(HT)ML is markup / tagging.

CSS / XSL(T) is styling.

JavaScript is like PHP a scripting language. Both are becoming more and more like an OOP language.

C, C#, C++, Rational Rose, Phyton, Java, Simula, BETA and Ruby on Rails are programming languages. Many compilers are written i C and C++.

Originally Posted by RichAtVNS

You will have a convert immediately if you can show this to me instead of going off and referencing some book preaching coding ethics.

The above book was meant to be related to your original post. I still mean it is (they are).

[kgun]

Originally Posted by google junky

CSS has the advantage of speeding up the page load time.
It also makes it easy to customize a page more than a page with tables ever thought about doing.

Yes, he knows that, since he can change the look and feel of 8000 pages in 10 seconds. Most probably he changes a central style sheet or template to use his language.

There is noting faster than XHTML on what we can call web 1.0 sites if it is done once. If it is done twice with the same stylesheet, that will speed up the page, since the stylsheet is already in the servers memory.

[RichAtVNS]

Originally Posted by google junky

CSS has the advantage of speeding up the page load time.
It also makes it easy to customize a page more than a page with tables ever thought about doing.

I understood that and do it my other sites which were created later

Originally Posted by google junky

Do you need to speed the pages up?

Nope not one bit in fact it runs way faster then ones with style sheets because there are no embedded clientside includes that need to be interpreted...

Originally Posted by google junky

Do you feel your site needs a face lift?

I can do that with the existing system and I have and is not germain to my question, the look is not the question

Originally Posted by google junky

Otherwise you are just taking a silly chance of messing up a good thing to make such a big change.

My suppostion is related to the programming structure of the page and how it could affect me in a positive way.. the reason for the post....
The statements in this forum many times by others has been.
move navigational code to later in the page and having the content move up...

Therefore:
this should not at all have a negative affect on the pages, as long as I do not move content to dynamic style sheets.... They may be thrown out by bots....

Originally Posted by google junky

If you really still want to play with the idea of knowing what you could accomplish with CSS as far as a website then make yourself a sister site

While this is interesting idea, it would require months or years to see how a duplicate site with the same content is treated by the search engine spiders.... And really does not answer my simple question....



Essentially if I have to identical looking pages and one had the navigation code (i.e. toolbar and status bar) in the source code after the content and the other had the navigation code before the content.



Would my content be weigthed differently by the Google and other engines??????

Originally Posted by google junky

Google Junky

thank you for your input

[RichAtVNS]

Originally Posted by kgun

My bolding. What do you mean?

Yes I have actually designed and written many, everything from design of the language elements, to the interpreter to the code generation pass of the compiler.

My masters is in Compiler Design and Construction:

In the past I've had jobs and projects designing:
1) Assembly languages for new processors
2) Flow Control languages for DSP systems
3) Basic like interpreters for Micro controllers in robotics
4) Analysis lanquages for cross platform development in the Financial industry.
5) Scrpting lanquage for generators of HTML, and Perl before VB , ASP and PHP existed called Webgen.
6) WYSWIG interfaces for dataflow design systems.
7) A Functional Mathmatical lanquage to replace fortran
8 ) A multi Cobol Dialect interpreter/decompiler for Y2k and endpoint problem analysis....
9) Operating system command line interpreter for new computer systems. (completely different then DOS or UNIX systems)

I was an original designer for IBM & CSS First Boston's HPS Rules , Edo's W.A.S.P.P., and VNS Inc. Webgen.

But this has nothing to do with my Question.........LOL

My Friend Kgun ---- simple question will taking my navigation elements and moving them after the content in my source code truly have any weight with the search engines?

I don't belive there will be a big penalty hit for when they are reindexed. A few months ago I added Tags to all the images all over the site that were missing them and the pages were not negatively affected in the search engines, in fact many actually moved up in the rankings.....

[kgun]

I am a happy amateur using this robots.txt file:

User-agent: *
Disallow: /include/
Disallow: /javascript/
Disallow: /styling/
Disallow: /

[RichAtVNS]

Originally Posted by kgun

I am a happy amateur using this robots.txt file:

User-agent: *
Disallow: /include/
Disallow: /javascript/
Disallow: /styling/
Disallow: /

Related to your robots.txt .... wouldn't disallowing javascript and include directories mean any links in those files would not be followed?

Kgun

Are you saying that I should reduce my source page file to as little extra stuff as possible, with the exception or content and links, Essentially librarying off everything to another file?

Does Google or any other search engine use ratio of content to physical page size to help in it's ranking of the content?

If so that would make me change my templates immediately and really look hard at all of my sites and tell , my friends to do the same......

This has just gotten very important to know the answer to my original question... because it would be significant!

I know good content is the important thing here, but with so many sites for position any barrier I can remove should see serious incremental changes....

[crankydave]

Google has already said they don't pay attention to the code to text ratio. They extract what they need and ignore the rest. That aspect is not important in that sense.

Yahoo has a patent application in regards to visualizing a page layout without actually rendering it and explores ways to approximate the most important parts of a page from that visualization. This suggests, that if being used, placement in the code isn't as important as how it is visualized.

United States Patent Application: 0080033996

At least when it comes to local search, Google can segment a document based upon a visualization of that document as well. I don't think it would be a stretch to think that a visualization and segmentation of all documents could be used. Patent filing...

United States Patent Application: 0060149775

If indeed all pages are visualized then position in the code wouldn't matter. However, since pages can be segmented, then segment position within that visualization may since it would be easy to assign different importance to different segment.

Dave

[kgun]

Originally Posted by RichAtVNS

Related to your robots.txt .... wouldn't disallowing javascript and include directories mean any links in those files would not be followed?

I only include ad links and code in those files. Minimalism is my overall principle. Content is the keyword. I regard semantic links as content. I personally don't bore GoogleBOT with code and styling.

Originally Posted by RichAtVNS

Are you saying that I should reduce my source page file to as little extra stuff as possible, with the exception or content and links, Essentially librarying off everything to another file?

I will not tell you what you shall do. I have told you how I do it. Only Google know the best solution.

[Keimos]

Hi Rich,

Using CSS to format your tables would be the simplest and easiest option.

Pure CSS people would argue but for an established template driven site by assigning CSS tags to the tables, columns and rows etc you could have equal control on the look. Tables versus CSS (div) is no longer an issue as most search engines realise that tables are now an established design element.

Who needs semantics, the quickest your page loads the better. Less code on page makes for more content. Content is and has always been the driving factor.

Keimos

[emps]

The prime consideration of Google and i assume most major search engines, is providing relevant search results for users.

So regardless of how pages are constructed,content has to be the important factor. What the website is about.

Even if there are multiple wc3 errors and warnings in validation,it is a minor consideration if the content speaks to the user with relevance and authority. This has been iterated so many times by google people.

There are directories such as Yahoo and Dmoz that are picky when analizing submitted websites. They do check the validation etc as well as content.

Because of human editing there always will be the tendency to deny listing because of frailtes in website design. But these are not search engines really,they ARE directories.

[Peopleunit]

From an SEO standpoint, I don't believe there's any difference between tables and CSS layouts. I don't see that moving your navigation elements to the bottom of the code would have an impact on SEO either.

With that said, I can imagine that how your templates are structured, that might influence the perceived weight or importance of the various content elements.

From a usability standpoint, <b>replicating</b> your navigation elements in the footer area, I imagine your users might consider it handy, and appreciated (not having to scroll back to the top of a page).

Note: Another concern that I have has to do with JS and/or Flash for navigation. Unless I'm mistaken much of the JS and Flash content is ignored by the search engines, so I'm wondering what effect this has on getting spidered/crawled by the search engines.

Perhaps someone could post a reply that addresses that issue. I make use of Flash menus, but I use standard html-link menus in the footer area as well.

I suppose posting a site map might overcome any shortcomings... but my sites aren't that complex so I haven't bothered with site maps.

[jordanmcclements]

Originally Posted by RichAtVNS

Essentially if I have to identical looking pages and one had the navigation code (i.e. toolbar and status bar) in the source code after the content and the other had the navigation code before the content.



Would my content be weigthed differently by the Google and other engines??????


thank you for your input

In my experience - it makes very very little difference if any (unless your navigation code is ridiculously long and complex)..

[RichAtVNS]

Originally Posted by Keimos

Hi Rich,

Using CSS to format your tables would be the simplest and easiest option.

Pure CSS people would argue but for an established template driven site by assigning CSS tags to the tables, columns and rows etc you could have equal control on the look. Tables versus CSS (div) is no longer an issue as most search engines realise that tables are now an established design element.

Who needs semantics, the quickest your page loads the better. Less code on page makes for more content. Content is and has always been the driving factor.

Keimos

TY - kinda my original "programmer" belief but who knows what's really going on....

[RichAtVNS]

Originally Posted by jordanmcclements

In my experience - it makes very very little difference if any (unless your navigation code is ridiculously long and complex)..

Hold on a second..... Did you just say it made a difference?
Navigation could be considered most of a page put out by a template.

Isn't that ridiculously long and complex.

[kgun]

As far as I have understood the SE Bot, it see's the page like we see it in the browser. That implies that the bot see the markup that is delivered to the browser by the script if that is used. Anything I have misunderstood here?

The only way I can see any potential SEO effect of styling / code / markup / tables is that it confuses the Bot so it is not able to index the content.

Classic example: Ileaglly nestd tags, open tags etc. In 2008 that is no problem for modern browser, so I doubt it is a problem for an advanced bot.

The worst example I can thing of is:


A table wihin a table ... within a table within other tags that are open and illegally nested. Try to make an ugly example and

1. See how it is rendered in different browsers.
2. How the SE index the page.

[Steven Glover]

Just as an expirement we are designing a new site and it has very little content mostly placeholder content. So I put a tad bit of text on one of our pages with the navigation being rendered into the top of the source code. The navigation has about 7 drop down menus with roughly 4 - 7 links being dropped down per category. I then ran the keyphrase "website design" with IBP and scored about 24% for Google. (KEEP IN MIND WE ARE IN DESIGN PHASE NO TWEAKING AT ALL). I then dropped the DIV for the navigation so that it would be rendered at the bottom of source code. I ran the same report again and scored 36% higher.

I don't know if any of you use IBP, but the results either suggest IBP doesn't really work, or else the use of DIV tags rendered in different spots throughout source code actually can make a difference. I'll leave that for you all to decide.

[kgun]

Here

CSS Destroyed My Rankings

is an old long thread (discussion) that have some interesting points.

Originally Posted by RichAtVNS

For instance:
There have been proponents of object oriented programming out their for years and it has not been shown to produce any better code then good functionally broken down code. Both work and are maintainable.

My question is not about supposition! Give me a valid reason, some proof to switch and I will in a heartbeat.

Back to OOP.

The Document Object Model (DOM) is central in most Web 2.0 applications. Even if you don't like book recommendations, I can not give you a better introduction to the topic than this http://www.sitepoint.com/books/ajax1...b743b813a26ea5 book where you also learn AJAX.

Related WPW link: A soft introduction to object oriented programming.

See the last link in my signature for additional information.

[RichAtVNS]

Originally Posted by Steven Glover

Just as an expirement I then ran the keyphrase "website design" with IBP and scored about 24% for Google. (KEEP IN MIND WE ARE IN DESIGN PHASE NO TWEAKING AT ALL). I then dropped the DIV for the navigation so that it would be rendered at the bottom of source code. I ran the same report again and scored 36% higher.

I think you may be proving one of my two suppositions:
*** Less non-content code equates to better page rank.

but the test needs to be with a div placing it at the same place on the rendered page, but then placed in a different place in the source.

To see if code placement in the pae effects rank....

Could you check that by say defining a navigation element at the begininning vs. end of a file.

Obviously you are using Absolute Positioning in your overall layout vs. Relative Positioning

[RichAtVNS]

Originally Posted by kgun

Back to OOP.

Kgun... buddy...

I have written object oriented languages and actually learned C++ from many of the Strausap's colleques at AT&T back in the early 80's. I wrote for Small talk, Gen, Scheme and proprietary OO systems.

This thread is not about that.. I don't want to get into a zealot discussion about programming paradigns,

I have to many geeky programmer friends and employees who already waste to much of my day on that stuff....

I'd love to discuss it till the cows come home with you... Just not here ... Thanks for understanding....

[kgun]

Originally Posted by RichAtVNS

I think you may be proving one of my two suppositions:
*** Less non-content code equates to better page rank.

but the test needs to be with a div placing it at the same place on the rendered page, but then placed in a different place in the source.

To see if code placement in the pae effects rank....

Could you check that by say defining a navigation element at the begininning vs. end of a file.

Obviously you are using Absolute Positioning in your overall layout vs. Relative Positioning

"To see if code placement in the pae effects rank...."

My answer No. You will not be able to prove that it has any effect. If it has, I will look for another SE

Reread the thread and see who brought up OOP. Hint: Post #3

[Webnauts]

I see in this thread that are some software engineers, so I felt I can post something that can make sense to them or others too, staying on topic.

We are upgrading our site markup to XHTML+RDFa RDFa Primer
since we are targeting to make our web site machine readable and perceivable (semantics) as possible, without affecting the visual appealing.

In other words, RDFa can play a role in improving search, as well as enhancing the way that users can view information. And this technology is also known as Web 3.0.

Now: Divs or tables? Look into the info above and below, and make up your mind what works for you best.

It's worth to take 60 minutes and watch this video: Google Tech Talk: All The Information In The World, The Way You Want It | webBackplane

Also read here what Yahoo thinks about it: SearchMonkey Support for RDFa Enabled (Yahoo! Developer Network Blog)

Good luck.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

It's worth to take 60 minutes and watch this video

John this has been extesively discussed here. It is the Google subforum. You know my view:

It is all about content (an animated / flash game is content).

That does not imply that you shall be sloppy on code and markup. But in the tradeoff between refactoring and writing new content, I personally prefer the latter, even if I can refactor if I have time.

I stand by my signature in this

Let us play the name space game. - W3Schools Forum

post.

$MyProfile = simplexml_load_file(myprofile.xml);
echo $MyProfile->name;
:: Kjell Gunnar Bleivik
echo $MyProfile->xpath('/personalinfo/profile[@profileID=W3Schools]');
:: Why learn the bad dialect of HTML when you get it free when tagging XML?
Learn to tag with XML, program with XSL, then improve using Ruby on Rails, PHP...
Later you may learn to fly using BETA.
I liked the Borland C++ Builder with the possiblity to use inline ASM {statements, but I am an economist}.
Overall principle, make it simple, as simple as possible but no simpler.

If code and markup has any effect in the SE, it is because the bots are not good enough now.

Content is King, refactoring Queen.

By the way RichAtVNS can not get a better member to discuss with. I leave

[google junky]

Originally Posted by RichAtVNS

I can see maybe the navigation elements like a toolbar being placed at the end of generated code vs. the beginning having an affect. But does anyone have a research to back it up?????

So what are the pros and cons of making the changes and is there any real reason I should do it?

I really would like some answers because if it really is the case that I am hurting my positions in the Search Engine I will switch my site around faster then you can say "I'm a Newbie!"

Well I read all the posts and reread your question.

If you want your answer then use a lynx text browser and see what happens. It will allow you to see what the search engines see and take the guess work out of how it is read.
Download Lynx browser from here
Lynx binaries for Windows

unzip and start with lynx.exe
after it is open then press "G"
Type in your url that has the navigation code at the bottom but being displayed at the top and see how it comes out.


As far as search engines following code. I do believe they read the code from top to bottom and in that order. The search engine does not read a page the same way a visitor sees it as someone else stated. I'm saying this concerning the idea of using menu code towards the last of the page and then showing at the top again. so IMO, if you move the code then you move its impact.

[RichAtVNS]

Originally Posted by google junky

As far as search engines following code. I do believe they read the code from top to bottom and in that order. The search engine does not read a page the same way a visitor sees it as someone else stated. I'm saying this concerning the idea of using menu code towards the last of the page and then showing at the top again. so IMO, if you move the code then you move its impact.

That was original my thought.....

[RichAtVNS]

Originally Posted by google junky

Well I read all the posts and reread your question.

If you want your answer then use a lynx text browser and see what happens. It will allow you to see what the search engines see and take the guess work out of how it is read.
Download Lynx browser from here
Lynx binaries for Windows

unzip and start with lynx.exe
after it is open then press "G"
Type in your url that has the navigation code at the bottom but being displayed at the top and see how it comes out.


As far as search engines following code. I do believe they read the code from top to bottom and in that order. The search engine does not read a page the same way a visitor sees it as someone else stated. I'm saying this concerning the idea of using menu code towards the last of the page and then showing at the top again. so IMO, if you move the code then you move its impact.

Thank you.. I will have one of my programmers check this out monday....

I'll get back to you to you in the next few days on the results...

[RichAtVNS]

Originally Posted by Webnauts

xxxxxxxxxxxx- deleted by RICHATVNS BECAUSE WEBNAUTS WAS PROMOTING A STANDARD INSTEAD OF ANSWERING THE QUESTION IN THIS POST... MODERATOR PLEASE LOOK INTO THIS TY!!!!!
Good luck.

I'm going to watch the first 5 minutes ... if it doesn't make the point quickly and compellingly in about 2 paragraphs of info... I won't watch the rest because like everthing else it will just be hyperbole...


After all Einstein's e=mc*c only needed Lorenzes correction of represented by 1/(1 + 1/c) to actually make it work in the Newtonian reality we live in LOL.

[RichAtVNS]

Originally Posted by RichAtVNS

I'm going to watch the first 5 minutes ... if it doesn't make the point quickly and compellingly in about 2 paragraphs of info... I won't watch the rest because like everthing else it will just be hyperbole...


After all Einstein's e=mc*c only needed Lorenzes correction of represented by 1/(1 + 1/c) to actually make it work in the Newtonian reality we live in LOL.

Webnauts,,, I am thourghly disaapointed in you.....
I watched this garbage and wondered why you did not read the thread..... This stuff was not germain to my post or even close!!!!

It looks like you are pushing that stuff and I am going to edit my previous post to not refer to your obvious attempt at promotion!

[RichAtVNS]

Originally Posted by kgun

Reread the thread and see who brought up OOP. Hint: Post #3

I only used it as an allegory like the car gas example....
not to start talking OO Discussion....

Sorry you did not realize that, and would use it as a tagent to talk on.

In the future I will endevour not to make my illustrations in programming principles when talking heuristics to a technophile....

This way it will reduce the confusion.....

OK Kgun?

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by RichAtVNS

Webnauts,,, I am thourghly disaapointed in you.....
I watched this garbage and wondered why you did not read the thread..... This stuff was not germain to my post or even close!!!!

It looks like you are pushing that stuff and I am going to edit my previous post to not refer to your obvious attempt at promotion!

Wonderful. I drawed myself back from the forums since a long time time, since I have no have time anymore. And I supported thousands of members here, and from all 7,473 posts since 2003 and I only had 3 little projects. Do you really believe I need to promote myself in this or other forums? If you really think so, you seriously missed something and you have seriously disappointed me. If you are blaming me because you did not understand what I met above, claiming that I was attempting self promotion, I am honestly shocked, and the same time very pissed off.

But thanks for that. Now I have a very good reason to get out of here for good. Guess it was time.

Still I wish you good luck buddy.

------------------------------------
Mods can you please delete my post above since I cannot edit it? I think I share too much free information that I really shouldn't. My everlasting mistake since years.

Thanks.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by RichAtVNS

I'm going to watch the first 5 minutes ... if it doesn't make the point quickly and compellingly in about 2 paragraphs of info... I won't watch the rest because like everthing else it will just be hyperbole...


After all Einstein's e=mc*c only needed Lorenzes correction of represented by 1/(1 + 1/c) to actually make it work in the Newtonian reality we live in LOL.

At last:

To change or not to change..... that is the question!

Change! But do it right!!!

[Webnauts]

The question to you answer may be found in 4 lines too, if you want an extended version to my previous post:
See point 3: 10 ways to piss off an SEO | Alhan Keser

[full house]

I think better not!